SailO2, I am in Toronto as well. I sail a non-self-tailing winches, hank-on sails Viking 33 as my "getaway boat" when I need a break from refitting our steel 41 footer.

I have been in in-mast boats twice now in heavy weather, once in a 1982 Bristol 45.5 near a decaying hurricane on delivery to the USVIs in Nov. 2009 and once in a post-2000 Catalina 470 during last July's Lake Ontario 300. The Bristol delivery saw nine days of 25 knots with squalls to 45 and the LO 300 had three squalls of approximately 40, 45 and 65 knots, respectively, in the first four hours of the race.

On the Bristol run, it was necessary to take in about four feet of the main (as measured on the boom) much of the time. We only took in more if we could see squalls. We were caught once or twice during the night, but the sheer inertia of the Bristol meant that while we were briefly overpowered, we remained in control. I saw how a couple would really benefit from in-mast furling in terms of quickly sailing in a conservative fashion, but when the wind dropped, I also saw that a battenless, roach-deficient main pulled at best in a half-assed fashion. Such was the compromise, and if the payoff is arriving a day later and 20 gallons of diesel down, but entirely intact, it's a good payoff.

The Catalina was essentially a cruiser being raced. Here, size was important. We were pasted a few times, and the highest winds produced a focus on the crew to roll in the jib (we had already lost an assy spinnaker and damaged a Code Zero...we were running out of foresails!). The main was completely released to flatten against the shrouds, but suffered little if any injury.

By contrast, more sporty boats, Mumms, Farrs, C&Cs and so on, suffered a lot of sail and in some cases rig damage. Look behind you, guys, and be ready to drop sail. A lot of sailmakers' kids are going to better colleges this winter, just because of what I saw.

Although we took a second place in our class, I wonder if a better main would have given us a first. To my mind, if you are cruising from island to island, or are short-handed, in-mast furling supplies a need. If you cruise longer distances, or in variable conditions, you might opt for a well-thought out slab reefing system so that you can enjoy the performance edge...even in a bloated cruiser...that battens and a nice roach can offer.

So in answer to your question: It matters primarily if it matters to you and you accept the cost of the convenience when contrasted with the effort of its absence.

In that sense, it's like choosing pressure water over foot pumps, I suppose!

Well if I were custom building a boat, in-mast furling would not be my first choice. My first choice would be either a Schaeffer or Leisure Furl boom furler, although I would also give serious consideration to a stack pack (but with a third reef).

However, if I were looking at a used boat that I otherwise loved and it had in-mast furling, I would live with it, especially since the cost of retrofitting some other reefing system would likely be prohibitive. However, I would make sure that both the furling system and the vang were properly serviced (by a professional) and that I knew fine points of using the system.

The extra weight aloft for in-mast furling is not just the extra height of the mast and the furlerhardware; the whole mast weighs (much) more, plus it has much more windage than a regular mast.

Somebody commented that "Lack of roach will reduce heeling moment, though" which isn't true of course. Even when taking a simplified view of things, it is still the surface area that counts. A furling main should still have the designed surface area at minimum; if it doesn't, it is under-powered.

But there's more to it: a full-battened bat-wing shaped main (ellipse shaped) will actually provide more speed with less heel than a furling main with the same surface area. The main reason is that the furling main will give more drag.

I also noticed comments that furling mains are just as fast or even faster than regular mains. If that were so, all racers would have them so please don't go that way :-)

I can give another big negative for these furling mains: the position of the boom. If you reef with a furling main (no matter which system) the boom basically stays at 90 degrees angle to the mast. This is bad. A slab-reefed main will lift the end of the boom more and more as you put in extra reefs, so that it will keep clear of the water (passing waves) as weather gets heavier. Dipping the end of the boom into the water is often the trigger to disaster.

I probably shouldn’t make my first post and comments in this forum on such a contentious issue as to whether or not to go with in-mast furling, but after reading several different posts where this question has come up, (I have been a silent observer for at least 3 years), I’d like to chime in with my own experience.

Welcome to CF and a good first post

Everyone is entitled to their own view point and as you have seen here they can vary a little but with a long cold winter in the Northern latitudes and some serious weather problems in Oz, then why not have a good friendly debate on key topics, until its time for antifouling again. Now were is this weeks "which anchor" thread

SailO2, I am in Toronto as well. I sail a non-self-tailing winches, hank-on sails Viking 33 as my "getaway boat" when I need a break from refitting our steel 41 footer.

Our friends had a Viking 33 back in the 70's - nice boat. We sailed a Northern 25 which was built in Whitby, I think.

Very few sailing amenities in that era - I personally think the self-tailing winch, roller furled headsail and lazy jacks represent the most valuable improvements.

We sailed an in-mast furler for many years and I would not go that route again: The lazy jack/stack pack is my preference for cruising sailing. It takes 5 minutes to raise or drop our 500+ sf mainsail using lazy jacks and you can rig slab reefing lines back to the cockpit.

I think Jedi has made an excellent analysis of the pro's & con's. I can only add (from experience) that IMF may save you a few minutes in getting the sails out or reefing, but you'll be spending hours sailing your boat so getting it to your liking (whatever choice that may be) is the priority.

Well if I were custom building a boat, in-mast furling would not be my first choice. My first choice would be either a Schaeffer or Leisure Furl boom furler, although I would also give serious consideration to a stack pack (but with a third reef).

However, if I were looking at a used boat that I otherwise loved and it had in-mast furling, I would live with it, especially since the cost of retrofitting some other reefing system would likely be prohibitive. However, I would make sure that both the furling system and the vang were properly serviced (by a professional) and that I knew fine points of using the system.

Stop being so reasonable! You're supposed to be a rock-ribbed traditionalist with rabidly held partisan convictions!

I guess I am looking for ways to convince myself that Jeanneau is the right boat. Please help.

Hi

I think You do not need to work too much to convince yourself that Jeanneau is the right boat.
Jeanneaus are sound boats. Of course, they are production boats - but they are really sound and seamanlike. If this boat suit Your needs well - do not hesitate just because of rolling main.

Lot was written about jamming in such systems. I'm sailing for 35 years now with different rigs through years. I had some mainsail jams. Only one really dangerous was the jam of slab reefing main caused by broken car near the head of the sail. It was not because of mishandling or bad maintenance - just a material fault.
Everything what move can jam, given the proper (or rather unproper) conditions, handling or other circumstances.

It is not true that with furling mast You have a taller rig. At least it is not true regarding Beneteau, Jeanneau and other brands of the group. They are designing their boats to accomodate somewhat longer boom with in mast furling to compensate for a lack of the roach. Or rather they do install somewhat shorter boom with slab reefing main. You need to remember, that they are designing for in mast furling as a standard, as they are selling most boats in this configuration. The slab reefing is the second choice in their case.

They are some drawbacks of in mast furling of course, but they may be remedied by vertical battens. The are now becoming more and more popular in Europe, and properly cut vertically battened main can be second to classic when racing, but the difference in unnoticeable when cruising. Vertical battens are also the best solution to avoid jamming, as they keep the sail vertically tensioned when furling.

I have on my boat 60 square metres main with vertical battens and just the same reefing system as used on Jeanneau. For some years and several gales I never had a problem with the system. We are sailing two handed and my Admiral, being rather not a muscular person can handle the reefing by herself, not calling me up.

I'm not trying to convince anybody that one system is better than the other - I'm only telling that it is good and reliable system and You can live with it happily. You just need to have a properly made sail for it, but this is a truth with any system.

How? Not when the sail is unfurled.
When its partially furled (reefed) the extra weight would be percentagly tiny compared with the boats overall weight.
If its fully furled what weight up the mast got to do with anything?

The mast itself is heavier, to begin with, and it contains an in-mast foil. A mast built for in-mast furling has an additional channel that a regular mast doesn't need. This channel keeps the furled sail from touching internal halyards. Otherwise, everything would jam up when the main was furled.

The up side to the extra weight is a stronger mast. The down side is more weight aloft.

I'm not trying to convince anybody that one system is better than the other - I'm only telling that it is good and reliable system and You can live with it happily. You just need to have a properly made sail for it, but this is a truth with any system.

Thanks for a balanced post, Thomas. Your experience with vertical battens is not yet so common that we "classic mainsail" types can't learn something from it.

A couple of questions I have about vertical battens, because I've never laid hands on them and few on the Great Lakes have them:

a) what is their size in terms of width and thickness compared to horizontal full battens?

b) are they installed from the bottom up into pockets as are "regular" full battens? Are they flexible enough to be installed with the main already on, or must this be done on deck or on shore, and then hoisted onto the in-mast furler?

c) is there a beefier batten pocket for vertical battens and is chafe a problem here, given that the weight of the whole batten essentially is focused on one end, which is presumably only an inch or two wide?

When you reach a certain age you forget more than you learn... Same applies to forum knowledge I guess. Here's a two-year old thread that has some info on vertical battens, the claim is that you get back half of the roach loss. I guess the potential problem is that the system with vertical battens may be more sensitive to the boom angle, and may need a specially made mast with more room for the battens.In-Mast Furling

A couple of questions I have about vertical battens, because I've never laid hands on them and few on the Great Lakes have them:

a) what is their size in terms of width and thickness compared to horizontal full battens?

b) are they installed from the bottom up into pockets as are "regular" full battens? Are they flexible enough to be installed with the main already on, or must this be done on deck or on shore, and then hoisted onto the in-mast furler?

c) is there a beefier batten pocket for vertical battens and is chafe a problem here, given that the weight of the whole batten essentially is focused on one end, which is presumably only an inch or two wide?

Thanks.

I had full vertical battens on my last boat, a 41' sloop. The battens were round, roughly the same diameter as a piece of blackboard chalk. Carbon fiber. They came in 6' sections that had to be screwed together. They were installed in conventional pockets from the foot, and had to be installed after the main was already hoisted.